Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2012

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was targets corrected. If anyone still wants either of these redirects deleted or retargetted then they can be renominated, without prejudice, with a specific rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

remove redirect as both persons are notable and have their own bio article. Should have redirect from middle intitial.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fixed. I redirected the O. middle initial of the senior to his full name. Originally, entering his name with the initial redirected to junior. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Paksat-1E[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up after a spurious page move. Absolutely no evidence that it has ever been called this. W. D. Graham 15:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: is this redirect misleading? For example, does "E1" have a special significance when applied to satellites which could lead a reader to an incorrect understanding of the topic? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just as misleading than any other other redirect from a purely fictitious name. --W. D. Graham 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phone model redirects to Samsung Telecommunications[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete as not useful now but without prejudice against recreating towards a product list or a refund if someone cares to expand. Tikiwont (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target page does not discuss the redirects' names. Keφr (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The existence of Template:Samsung phones shows that many models of phones are individually notable and so have individual articles, and there is apparently no list article to which non-notable models can redirect. However, the notability of these specific models has never been determined at AfD, the articles were unilaterally redirected. I recommend the following Restore Samsung SGH-E370 and Samsung SCH-R860 to articles, where they can be nominated at AfD if they are believed non-notable. Retarget Samsung E370 to Samsung SGH-E370 as that is a very plausible redirect while the article exists and can be speedy deleted per CSD G8 if AfD deletes the article it targets. For none of these titles is the present target useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing valuable to restore. The articles had no sources or substantial content anyway, they might just as well be recreated when sources are found. Starting another discussion would be pure bureaucracy. Keφr (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pink highlighters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originated from vandalism page TheChampionMan1234 01:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although it's too soon for reliable stats (you can't tell anything from the first few days, nor any time spent listed at RfD or similar high-traffic pages) it seems like a perfectly reasonable search term to me, so there is no benefit from deletion. Also the redirect will discourage a repetition of the vandalism - it's not reason enough to create a redirect, but once created it's reason enough to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No person I know would search for a plural form of a specific color of highlighter on Wikipedia for information on it. The page isn't even a working redirect, just something that tells you to click on a link. To the poster above, if it's not enough of a reason to create the page, it's enough of a reason to delete it. If people come to a consensus to create a page for every highlighter color, then maybe. But why have only pink? gwickwire | Leave a message 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is only the notice of this discussion that is stopping the redirect from functioning as usual, so this is irrelevant to determining its future. Redirects are cheap so deletion costs more than keeping them, and where they are doing no harm (as here) they are frequently kept, especially if used. As I noted above, we cannot yet know whether this gets use or not so your statement that nobody would use it is pure guesswork and while it is unlikely to gain many hits it is far from implausible. For comments about other colours see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the editor who turned the article into a redirect. I was initially considering tagging it under criterion G2, but I decided to redirect it to Highlighter. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, catfish. Avoid deletion when you can, and you redirected to a logical target. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not a likely search topic and unlikely to have its own discussion in the actual highlighter article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, useful for navigation. Probably not worth deleting to encourage article creation, and I see no other reason for deletion. WilyD 09:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no plausible reason provided for deletion, and the target makes sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We definitely don't need a separate article on pink highlighters, and its existence helps to discourage the creation of one. What's more, it doesn't hurt anything, and people wanting information on pink highlighters will learn something by reading the article on highlighters of all colors. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_29&oldid=1142587490"